SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
P. Kavitha D/o Late S.R. Padmanabhan - Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 37221 of 2024, W.M.P. No. 40233 of 2024
Decided On : 14-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Ram Siddhartha
For the Respondents: T. Chandrasekaran, D.B.R. Prabhu

Unauthorized constructions must be rectified in compliance with building regulations; courts should not condone illegalities that threaten public safety.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 80A - Enforcement action by Greater Chennai Corporation against unauthorized construction - Petitioner failed to rectify deviations despite multiple opportunities and continued to file petitions to delay action - Court emphasized the need for compliance with building regulations and the dangers of unauthorized constructions. (Paras 1, 10, 12, 16, 19)

(B) Judicial Review - Courts should not encourage illegal constructions and must uphold the law to prevent environmental damage and public inconvenience. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a property, constructed a building with deviations from the approved plan, leading to enforcement action by the Greater Chennai Corporation. Despite multiple notices and opportunities to rectify, the petitioner failed to comply.

Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the enforcement action taken by the Greater Chennai Corporation, emphasizing the need for adherence to building regulations.

Issues: The main issues included the petitioner’s failure to rectify unauthorized construction and the implications of ongoing litigation on enforcement actions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unauthorized constructions pose risks to public safety and that the law must be upheld to prevent further illegalities.

Result: Writ petition dismissed with costs.

ORDER :

1. Under assail is the proceedings dated 18.11.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation to execute enforcement action, specifically locking and sealing the premises belonging to the petitioner, as per the orders of the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation dated 11.06.2024 on 29.11.2024. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to de-occupy the premises within seven days to enable the Greater Chennai Corporation officials to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner of the property measuring to an extent of 2420 Sq.ft at Plot No.10, Thangam Colony 1st Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Admittedly, the petitioner constructed a two-storey building by obtaining building plan permission from Chennai Corporation. However, the Corporation Authorities received complaints from the adjacent plot owner regarding unauthorised building construction/deviations. The complaint was taken on file by the Corporation and an inspection was conducted. The authorities found the following deviations/violations to the approved plans:

S. No.DescriptionAs per PlanAs on SiteDeviated/ Unauthorised
1.Ground Floor & Car Parking136.73181.4244.69 m2
2.First Floor141.83181.4239.59 m2
3.Second Floor99.89181.4281.53 m2
4.Terrace Floor9.0014.225.22 m2

3. Consequently, a Stop Work Notice was issued by the Chennai Corporation vide proceedings dated 11.11.2020. Thereafter, further notice was issued on 08.01.2021, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.476 of 2022. The writ petition was filed and following orders are passed:

7. Considering the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 24.12.2021 on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six months. Till such time, the respondents shall not take any coercive action.”

4. The writ petition in W.P.No.14102 of 2021 filed by the Mr. D. Rajasekaran, was also disposed of by this Court on 21.01.2022 granting liberty to move a fresh writ petition as and when required. The Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 80A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, was disposed of by the Government vide letter dated 08.04.2022. Pertinently, the Government, while disposing of the Statutory Revision, granted three months time to the petitioner to rectify the violations of the subject building and to submit the revised planning permission to Greater Chennai Corporation. The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation is directed to pursue necessary action accordingly and send a report to the Government within a period of three months. However, the petitioner has not complied with the directions issued by the Government. A petition was moved before the Government seeking six months extension of time to carry out rectification works on the subject property.

5. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20044 of 2022, seeking a direction to take action against the alleged illegal construction by her neighbour, Mr.D.Rajasekaran, at Plot No.11 North Crescent Road, 1st Street, H Block, Thangam Colony. The writ petition along with contempt petition in CONT.P.No.405 of 2022, was disposed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.09.2022 and the following orders are passed:

5. We are informed that the Commissioner appointed to find out the actual encrochament has, after inspecting the property, filed a report stating that both the petitioners herein and the fourth respondent had encroached upon each other-s property. The dispute which commenced as unauthorised construction has now become a dispute interse between the petitioner and the fourth respondent which has to be decided only by a Competent Civil Court and this Court sitting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top